Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

Search Representations

Results for The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens search

New search New search

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

2.32

Representation ID: 354

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Representation Summary:

General - on a general note we suggest that this 'taxation' levied by planning officers and the imposition on developers to provide council housing is an abrogation of government/council responsibility. If there is a statutory obligation to provide housing the government/council should get on with it. After all there has not been a better time to buy vacant properties or sites.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

1.1

Representation ID: 355

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Representation Summary:

We find it diffcult to comment on individual aspects (or whether to laugh or cry). The document appears to be off the shelf requiring the Council merely to fill in the blank spaces with the usual smattering of planning speak. 106 agreements have been in existence for many years but related to a particular development. The cash payments were limited to sensible matters such as contributions towards specific town centre parking. Unlike previous land tax legislation this seems to be a back door for of taxation (stealth tax springs to mind) which appears to be extremely imprecise and calculated by Council officers with no expertise in valuation nor taxation.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

1.1

Representation ID: 356

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Representation Summary:

Specific - the problem facing the planning officers is illustrated in Appendix 2 pages 38-39. Especially in the light of recent events relating to No 82 Undercliff Gardens the obvious conclusion is if the planning officers were to pay more attention to the planning issues, read the file, check the drawings, inspect the site and take more notice of correspondence from neighbours and interested societies we would not now be faced with the No 82 fiasco.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

1.1

Representation ID: 357

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Representation Summary:

In the current economic climate, contributions by developers are likely to be restricted, especially as they are required to make an up front payment (see Section 4 first paragraph).

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

2.2

Representation ID: 358

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Representation Summary:

The approach in Section 2 embraces the concept of negotiation as to the amount of the contribution. Whilst accepting that a hard and fast rule on quantum would be difficult, the council seem to do little to provide certainty.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

1.1

Representation ID: 359

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Representation Summary:

Any monies obtained from such agreements will take many years to gather, (see page 33) by which time circumstances will have changed, and even governments may change. We suggest any funds so raised should be ring fenced.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.